Complex or just Complicated?
I was having a conversation recently with a senior leader about how things get rolled out in her company. “Things sometimes get rolled out “half-baked”. It really shouldn’t be that hard” she said in jest, but her point was a serious one. I bantered back that sometimes companies roll things out “fully-baked” when they shouldn’t. Or even worse, I jested, running a pilot when all the details have been approved by the Chairman. Who’s going to change course on that one? “Hmmm, good point” she responded. And that lead to a discussion about whether a “fully-baked” or a “half-baked” approach was better. But beneath the joviality was a serious question about leading in complexity. I introduced her to the Cynefin Framework.
The Cynefin Framework (pronounced Kuh-nev-in) was originally developed by David Snowden at IBM and it helps leaders determine the context they are working in so they can make the right choices. What follows is a brief explanation. For a more detailed review, read the HBR article: A Leader's Framework for Decision Making . (1)
The Framework
The framework has four panes that can describe the context or environment in which we lead or operate (see Figure 1). On the right hand side is the predictable domain where cause and effect can be determined (simple and complicated). On the left hand side is the unpredictable domain where there is no immediately apparent relationship between cause and effect, and the way forward is determined based on emerging patterns (complex and chaotic).
In the obvious domain cause-and-effect relationships are easily discernible by everyone. The right answer is clear. Putting together IKEA furniture is an example because all the steps are clear, and if followed correctly, you will end up with a properly-put-together desk. This is the domain of best practice and “Known knowns”. Other examples might include order processing and fulfillment or running a payroll.
In the complicated domain the relationship between cause and effect is less clear but can be established. There may not be “one best” way to do this. So we often rely on experts to analyze the situation before we decide. This is the domain of “good practice” and “known unknowns”. Designing the supply chain for a product could be an example of this. Sending a person to the moon is also an example (although much more complicated). Experts might disagree on exactly how to achieve the goal, but there is at least one right answer out there.
In the complex domain, you cannot figure out the right answer ahead of time. The relationship between cause and effect is only known afterwards and the answer emerges from patterns. It is the world of “Unknown unknowns”. Think about parenting. You can try all the “right” things (according to experts) but if they don’t work you try something else. You figure it out as you go. You simply cannot predict how your child will turn out. Now consider parenting two children. Because they can be so different, one approach might work well for one child but not for the other at all. Leading people, transformations, culture change, acquisitions, growth, turnarounds, etc. are all typically in the complex domain.
In a chaotic context, there is no point in searching for right answers: The relationships between cause and effect are impossible to determine because there are no definite patterns; only turbulence. This is the realm of “unknowables”. Snowden points to the events of 9/11 as an example of this.
How does knowing this help?
Most situations in organizations are in the complex domain because of the unpredictability of things such as changing consumer demands, employee turnover, unexpected financial earnings, economic conditions, a social media spike, external threats, etc. Everything is so interdependent these days. In complex situations, the leader’s job is to search for patterns, experiment and learn – usually in rapid cycles and safe-to-fail experiments.
In leading change, Ron Heifetz (2) identifies two types of challenges; adaptive and technical. Like Snowden’s complicated domain, technical challenges are those that can be solved by the knowledge of experts. Adaptive challenges, similar to the complex domain, require new learning where responsibility for the learning does not reside with experts but with the people who have the problem. So this fundamentally changes the nature of traditional or top down leadership! And most leaders are not equipped to deal with this.
Why are leaders not equipped to deal with complexity and adaptive challenges? One answer is that it takes much more time to be an adaptive leader. In reality, it is an upfront investment. The more likely answer is mindset and skill. From a mindset perspective, most leaders crave certainty, need to manage risk, rely on experts and dread not meeting their goals. They mostly operate from mindsets most suited for obvious and complicated contexts, or solving technical problems. It is their default operating system. It takes a lot of courage to experiment, nudge, be uncertain and risk getting it wrong. And leaders often need an organizational culture that will support these behaviors. From a skill-set perspective, traditional leadership often involves strategy, execution and controlling; adaptive leadership is more about setting direction, empowerment and coaching. Leaders are more likely to be highly skilled and invested in the traditional.
To highlight this even further, consider the traditional and alternative approach to change as mapped out by Paul Lawrence and Allen Moore (3). They say that the traditional approach to change goes something like this:
Gather lots of data.
Work out what the issue is.
Decide on a solution.
Tell everyone in the organization what they need to do differently.
Make sure they do it.
When people do what they are supposed to do - congratulate them in public.
Keep going until the change is “embedded”.
The alternative approach to change goes something like this:
Different people sit in different places and see the world differently. All these perspectives are valid.
People won’t be told what to think.
People decide what to think by talking to people they trust.
People talk to lots of other people.
You can’t predict who people will talk to.
People tend to do what they think is right, unless someone stands over them with a big stick.
Change emerges from the relationships between lots of different people. This process is unpredictable and cannot be controlled.
Wow. What radically different perspectives on change. The second approach is more likely what actually happens in organizations. It seems like a natural process. So what can leaders do?
What To Do
Here are three approaches or habits that leaders can adopt when leading in complexity.
1. Diagnose the Context
Determine if the context is indeed in the “complex” domain, or if it’s more likely to be in the complicated or obvious. Are we dealing with an adaptive or technical challenge? Is this a predictable situation? Is there a relationship between cause and effect? Will best practice work here? Is the path from A to B knowable? Who can solve this better - experts or end users? Is there room to experiment here? Does it require changes in values, beliefs, roles, relationships and approaches to work? Does it require changes in several places – often across organizational boundaries?
2. Take a Systemic Approach
Leaders are trained to solve problems; not to see systems. You might be familiar with the famous 5 Why’s technique of solving problems. This narrows things down repeatedly until we get to the root cause of an issue. Then we come up with the right solution. In complexity, this is a misguided approach and a waste of time – even dangerous – since we cannot know the cause ahead of time. Instead of looking at the problem, see the system first. Organizations are complex social systems with lots of connections and interdependencies. Also, most learning in organizations is social. Who is talking to whom? Who are the influencers and detractors? What stories are being told? What are the predominant narratives in the culture? Ron Heifitz (2) uses a metaphor of getting on the balcony to see the system. When we do this, we take our focus off the problem and we look at relationships and connections. What are the forces that lead up to this? What’s the nature of the relationships? What are the connections and interdependencies? What might be happening at the top, middle and bottom of the house? What’s happening in the space between customer and organization? What patterns can be spotted? In leading change, if a good pattern is emerging, how can we amplify it? If an unhelpful pattern is emerging, how can we dampen it? We also need to step down from the balcony and into the two hall to begin the dialogue and inquiry.
3. Inquire Humbly
If we cannot know the answers in advance, then we depend on others for the answers to emerge. Edgar Schein concludes that this dependency creates a need for humility from leaders and a willingness to set aside their own expertise. He calls for humble inquiry. He defines humble inquiry as “the fine art of drawing someone out, of asking questions to which you do not already know the answer, of building a relationship based on curiosity and interest in the other person”(4). When true inquiry takes place, the real story emerges, including underlying assumptions and beliefs. It is here where new possibilities emerge. I would say that the vast majority of leadership conversations in organizations today are not based on true inquiry. In most conversations, leaders have an agenda to pursue or a position to defend (try listening for this…you will be amazed). When you add the rank and power of the leader to the equation, it’s no wonder that blocks in the system do not get identified and creative solutions do not emerge. So next time you have a work conversation, try setting aside your agenda and your expertise (ohhh…that could be hard). Instead, focus on two things: 1) the relationship; and 2) learning something new.
So remember the leader mentioned at the beginning? We had a follow up conversation on a video call. Having read Snowden’s HBR article and some other reading on adaptive leadership by Heifetz, she was able to see one of the big leadership failures of her company - trying to solve adaptive challenges with technical solutions. She said, “We are rolling programs out, not leading transformation”. She noted how the project-management-style rollout of change, which works great for technical problems, was being used for complex projects. “That’s just how we do things”, she said matter-of-factly. “But at least in my area, I can now start to do things differently. Thank You”. As she reached out to turn off her camera she said jokingly - “It doesn’t have to be that complicated!”
References
A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making, Harvard Business Review, November 2007, David J. Snowden and Mary E. Boone
The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World 2009, Ronald A. Heifetz, Marty Linsky and Alexander Grashow.
Coaching in Three Dimensions: Meeting the Challenges of a Complex World, 2018, Paul Lawrence and Allen Moore.
Humble Inquiry: The Gentle Art of Asking Instead of Telling, 2013, Edgar H. Schein.